Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The rich have lawyers, accountants they pay a lot of money to minimize their tax exposure. At this point Obama has made it clear these increases aren't about closing the deficit but revenge. His base of nitwits are down for it so I say bring it. Many of these nitwits are rich so let him raise their taxes. The GOP should stand down.
They should indeed. Obama himself is in the affected tax brackets genius. He figures he won't be eating cat-food if his taxes go up a few thousand. None of the top 10% would be. But enough crying. Let taxes rise for everyone! Let's all go over the cliff. Revenge... ... that really makes sense to you?
Kennedy lowered the top income bracket tax rate to 63%. Should we raise the top income tax rate to 63%?
Lowered would be the operative word in your post - not 63%.
And it was lowered from 91% to 70%.
Here's the opposite.
The onset of the Great Depression in 1929 led to a sharp decline in tax revenues, as the economy contracted. President Herbert Hoover's response was to push for a major tax increase. The Revenue Act of 1932 raised tax rates across the board, with the top rate rising from 25 percent to 63 percent. That increase was justified on the grounds that the budget needed to be balanced to restore business confidence. Yet the $462 million deficit of 1931 jumped to $2.7 billion by 1932 despite the tax increase. Interestingly, the major cause of the deficit's rise was a sharp decline in income tax revenue, which fell from $1.15 billion in 1930 to $834 million in 1931, $427 million in 1932, and just $353 million in 1933. Moreover, as Table 6 demon- strates, the higher tax rates on the wealthy actually caused the tax burden to be shifted to the nonwealthy.
None of the top 10% would be. But enough crying. Let taxes rise for everyone! Let's all go over the cliff. Revenge... ... that really makes sense to you?
No, it only makes send to Obama and the ObamaRATS.
The last time they raised taxes there was a flurry of activity at the end of the year before the tax changes hit.
Huge revenue to Uncle Sam the next year because of all the buying/selling/moving around of money.
But the year after..revenue dried up by 50%.
People will change their investing habits in response to tax changes.
I happened to be visiting a colleague in his office yesterday when his broker called. Felt bad for the broker, no new business for him. My colleague and his wife decided due to the inevitable increase in dividends and capital gain taxes they felt the market may slide. Not sure about that per se probably already built in prices but nonetheless no new investment, extra money will go towards paying off mortgage.
I wonder how many decisions like this are being made nationwide?
They should indeed. Obama himself is in the affected tax brackets genius. He figures he won't be eating cat-food if his taxes go up a few thousand. None of the top 10% would be. But enough crying. Let taxes rise for everyone! Let's all go over the cliff. Revenge... ... that really makes sense to you?
Nope but the Obamabots want revenge and we're still a democracy so let's go full throttle.
Yes, tax-revenue rose dramatically when Kennedy lowered top rates --- to 70% marginal. I'm glad to see that the conservatives here on CD finally admit that high tax-rates do not sink the economy and that the nation can have dramatic economic growth when top rates are 70%.
This thread re-enforces the move to raise top rates to 39% -- half of what the top rates were in the 1960s.
So, how will raising the rates from 34.5% to 39% topple the economy when 70% rates did not?
Lowered would be the operative word in your post - not 63%.
And it was lowered from 91% to 70%.
Here's the opposite.
The onset of the Great Depression in 1929 led to a sharp decline in tax revenues, as the economy contracted. President Herbert Hoover's response was to push for a major tax increase. The Revenue Act of 1932 raised tax rates across the board, with the top rate rising from 25 percent to 63 percent. That increase was justified on the grounds that the budget needed to be balanced to restore business confidence. Yet the $462 million deficit of 1931 jumped to $2.7 billion by 1932 despite the tax increase. Interestingly, the major cause of the deficit's rise was a sharp decline in income tax revenue, which fell from $1.15 billion in 1930 to $834 million in 1931, $427 million in 1932, and just $353 million in 1933. Moreover, as Table 6 demon- strates, the higher tax rates on the wealthy actually caused the tax burden to be shifted to the nonwealthy.
Lowered would be the operative word in your post - not 63%.
And it was lowered from 91% to 70%.
Here's the opposite.
The onset of the Great Depression in 1929 led to a sharp decline in tax revenues, as the economy contracted. President Herbert Hoover's response was to push for a major tax increase. The Revenue Act of 1932 raised tax rates across the board, with the top rate rising from 25 percent to 63 percent. That increase was justified on the grounds that the budget needed to be balanced to restore business confidence. Yet the $462 million deficit of 1931 jumped to $2.7 billion by 1932 despite the tax increase. Interestingly, the major cause of the deficit's rise was a sharp decline in income tax revenue, which fell from $1.15 billion in 1930 to $834 million in 1931, $427 million in 1932, and just $353 million in 1933. Moreover, as Table 6 demon- strates, the higher tax rates on the wealthy actually caused the tax burden to be shifted to the nonwealthy.
Hoover advocated government not getting involved in the economy and shrinking the money supply would instill confidence in the market. It didn't work. Sounds like the GOP platform of 2012.
Yes, tax-revenue rose dramatically when Kennedy lowered top rates --- to 70% marginal. I'm glad to see that the conservatives here on CD finally admit that high tax-rates do not sink the economy and that the nation can have dramatic economic growth when top rates are 70%.
This thread re-enforces the move to raise top rates to 39% -- half of what the top rates were in the 1960s.
So, how will raising the rates from 34.5% to 39% topple the economy when 70% rates did not?
You dodged the question.
When raising taxes on "the rich" only generates $80 billion per year, when we have annual deficits of $1.2 trillion, how does this make any difference at all? Of course it does not.
We have a few options-
1. VAT tax 15%
2. balanced budget amendment with 10% of annual revenues earmarked for debt reduction
3. cut entitlements
4. get creative with Obama's magical $10 trillion coins (jeopardizing the bond market)
5. just keep spending until the currency collapses and interest rates approach astronomical levels
6. break up the nation- only the old USA is responsible for the debt, not its citizens or states
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
